Today is #WorldAIDSDay, a day when the world’s focus is on the fight against HIV/AIDS.

There are already a number of medications on the market to help ease symptoms of HIV.According to the World Health Organization, since the HIV/AIDS epidemic began more than 30 years ago, over 70 million people have contracted HIV. No vaccine exists to help prevent this life-threatening disease. But there’s hope on this front.

Johnson & Johnson, in partnership with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, National Institutes of Health and others, has begun the first efficacy trial of an investigational mosaic HIV-1 preventive vaccine. This “mosaic” would likely be comprised of various genes that would be manipulated in order to produce an effective vaccine.

“Developing a vaccine against HIV is a top priority and our best hope for a world without AIDS. Finding an effective HIV vaccine to protect people at risk has been a major scientific challenge, but today there is new optimism that we can get there,” said Johnson & Johnson’s Chief Scientific Officer Dr Paul Stoffels, M.D..

The new,large-scale study (HVTN 705/HPX2008) (also known as “Imbokodo”, the Zulu word for “rock”) will study the effectiveness of the vaccine produced by Janssen Pharmaceutical Companies, a part of Johnson & Johnson. It will evaluate whether the vaccine regimen is safe and if it’s able to reduce the incidence of HIV infection among 2,600 women in sub-Saharan Africa.

The problem with developing any vaccine so far has been that there are many strains and subtypes of the virus that causes HIV/AIDS, and different strains are common in different parts of the world, which has posed challenges. The mosaic vaccine the “Imbokodo” study is focusing on was developed based on a variety of HIV subtypes.

“The ultimate goal is to deliver a ‘global vaccine’ that could be deployed in any geographic region to help protect vulnerable populations at risk of infection,” Johan Van Hoof, M.D., Janssen Vaccines & Prevention B.V. and Therapeutic Area Head, R&D, Infectious Diseases & Vaccines said.

If the vaccine proves safe and successful, it could save millions of lives. Let’s hope for them to discover what it takes to finally create a life-saving preventative.

Filed under: Exciting New Developments Tagged: AIDS, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, HIV, HIV vaccine, Johnson & Johnson]]>https://envirothink.wordpress.com/2017/12/01/johnson-johnson-and-partners-will-work-to-create-an-hiv-vaccine/feed/0envirothinkImage result for HIV logoNew study shows we’re eating WAY more chemicals than we thoughthttps://envirothink.wordpress.com/2017/11/21/new-study-shows-were-eating-way-more-chemicals-than-we-thought/
https://envirothink.wordpress.com/2017/11/21/new-study-shows-were-eating-way-more-chemicals-than-we-thought/#commentsTue, 21 Nov 2017 16:15:52 +0000http://envirothink.wordpress.com/?p=15862]]>Pesticide use on commercially grown crops has increased dramatically even more than consumers have been led to believe. According to figures recently released by the Soil Association – the UK’s leading food and farming charity and organic certification body – show the number of chemicals on supermarket vegetables has increased up to 17 fold in the past 40 years.

These figures were unveiled at a Royal Society of Medicine conference on pesticides. Scientists there warned that consuming tiny amounts of many different chemicals on a regular basis could be harmful to human health.

The consumption of “toxic cocktails” of low levels of pesticides are thought to be linked with degenerative diseases like strokes, heart attacks and cancers.

Professor Anne Marie Vinggaard, of the division of diet, disease prevention and toxicology at the National Food Institute, said: “Chemicals may have no effect by themselves but when mixed have a pronounced mixture effect. We are not just exposed to pesticides,” she said. “We are exposed to a lot of chemicals acting together.”

Onions and leeks have seen the biggest rise in toxic chemical application, with the number rising 17 fold. Back in 1974 less than two chemicals were applied to an average wheat crop, a figure which rose more than ten fold to 20.7 in 2014. And potato crops are now sprayed with five times more chemicals than they were in 1975.

A chief scientific adviser to the British Government recently warned that the assumption by regulators around the world that it’s safe to use pesticides at industrial scales across landscapes is false.

Dr Michael Antoniou, head of the gene expression and therapy research group at King’s College London, said the only way to guarantee minimizing your exposure to pesticides is by eating organically.

Quoting from an article in The Telegraph, “A long term study of Roundup in rats found that the lowest dosage, that was 75,000 times below the recommended dose of glyphosate [a common crop weed killer], had Anatomical Level toxicity leading to fatty tissue liver disease.”

Keith Tyrell, spokesman at the Pesticide Action Network UK, said: “It should be up to the pesticide companies to prove that the pesticide does not cause harm, not up to the researchers to show that there is harm.”

With this in mind, it’s critical that consumers take steps to minimize chemical exposure through food. Besides purchasing organic produce, another way to avoid eating chemicals is to clean produce before eating it by using a good vegetable “wash”. There are a number of good products out there. This writer has tried a few of them and personally uses one by Vermont Soap – a company long known for quality organic products – called “Produce Magic”. There are others out there as well. And they’re simple to use. Just spray, rinse and you’re ready to go.

Just because you can’t see them doesn’t mean your produce hasn’t been amply sprayed with toxic pesticides. Unless it’s certified organic, you can count on that beautiful broccoli, carrots, brussel sprouts or lettuce you bought HAS been sprayed. It’s up to we consumers to be smart about what we buy and feed to our families. The more you know, the healthier the choices you can make.

Among the hundreds of emails and newsletters that come my way everyday, one quickly caught my attention. In it was an article that talked about companies that do animal testing, a topic I’ve been following for a while.

Let me be blunt. I despise that companies do horrendously painful and inhumane testing on defenseless, innocent animals. And I do my best to not use products that I know do such testing. Over the past several years, that’s meant giving up a few of what I consider the best skin care products out there, which has NOT made me a happy camper.

Interestingly, the number of companies that do animal testing had been going consistently. Then a year or two ago, this changed. Companies that wanted to have their products carried in China and other Asian countries were required to again do these barbaric lab tests.

Companies and brands like Mary Kay, Almay, Dove and many others have joined the list of what I consider sanctioned corporate animal abusers. And we Americans aren’t as versed as we ought to be on who these abusers are or what options we have to help avoid these products. Hence this post.

Take a good look at the graphic above. Do you see some of your go-to products or manufacturers on it? If so, you’ll want to begin checking out alternative products. There are plenty of choices out there and many that don’t do cruel tests on animals are actually pretty good quality. You just need to do some homework to find them.

If you see these logos on products, you can trust that they don’t test on animals.

The graphic above is your next line of defense. These are signs consumers can count on in their search for products that don’t do animal testing. And more of these are showing up these days We consumers are waking up to this unspeakable issue and demanding more compassionate business practices.

As well we should. Animals don’t have a voice. They count on us to speak for them. Voting with our dollars is the best way to tell manufacturers that torturing animals – be they mice, dogs, cats, pigs or goats – is wrong, intolerable and inexcusable.

So don’t let them get away with continuing to torture and abuse for the sake of sales. When we change our spending habits, they’ll get the point.

Filed under: Consumer issues Tagged: animal abuse, animal cruelty, animal testing, cruelty-free]]>https://envirothink.wordpress.com/2017/09/13/do-your-favorite-products-do-animal-testing/feed/1envirothinkVolunteers Transform Illegal Encampments into Welcoming Public Placeshttps://envirothink.wordpress.com/2017/09/11/volunteers-transform-illegal-encampments-into-welcoming-public-places/
https://envirothink.wordpress.com/2017/09/11/volunteers-transform-illegal-encampments-into-welcoming-public-places/#respondMon, 11 Sep 2017 20:46:41 +0000http://envirothink.wordpress.com/?p=15852]]>Many of you know I was a long time resident of Northern California, a place of beauty and many natural wonders that still holds a special place in my heart. The following is an excerpt from an article I wrote that was recently published online about one of these remarkable public places and the trials and transformations it’s gone through.

A cleared section of Lower Diestelhorst Open Space is once again available for visitors to enjoy

With wildfires and smoke threatening the north state and beyond, it’s easy to forget the natural wonders in the middle of Redding (California). Those of us who’ve meandered our river trails recognize these as crown jewels.

Among these is the land on the north and south sides of the Diestelhorst Bridge. Many have enjoyed its paved paths, but few know the hidden trails of what’s called Lower Diestelhorst Open Space – the long-overgrown area between the Union Pacific Railroad trestle and the Anderson Cottonwood Irrigation District (A.C.I.D.) intake.

Dr. Randy Smith, Redding’s champion of open spaces, does. For years, he has voluntarily spearheaded clean-up efforts to keep open spaces passable for all to enjoy.

The City of Redding has owned Lower Diestelhorst and the surrounding property since the late 1970s. The eastern and western portions were purchased from descendants of the Diestelhorst family, who had owned it since 1858. Originally prime farm land, the property boasted a producing orchard and vineyard for more than 100 years. The now-defunct Auto Camp replaced these.

Cattle once grazed on the Lower Diestelhorst property. When they were removed, the grass and everything down to the river side of the access road was overrun by blackberry and impenetrable weeds.

To learn more about the transformation of this beautiful public space and the people who are making it happen, click here.

Contrary to assurances by fish farming concerns, thousands of farmed Atlantic salmon have escaped into the Pacific Ocean. They escaped from a damaged net pen at a Cooke Aquaculture fish farm off Cypress Island in Washington’s Puget Sound on Saturday, This has sparked fears that the farm-raised fish could threaten wild Pacific salmon.

According to the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), 305,000 salmon were in the net pen at the time. The company estimates that 4,000-5,000 fish escaped.

The concept and practice of farmed salmon has been a controversy since its inception.

Here are a few facts about the farmed fish or in aquaculture industry:

Salmonids (particularly salmon and rainbow trout), along with carp, are the two most important fish groups.

Environmental groups have long criticized the practice of aquaculture. According to Food & Watch, “massive amounts of antibiotics, hormones, and pesticides are required to keep disease at bay just to keep fish and shrimp alive in overcrowded conditions (typically in nets, cages, or ponds).”

Crowded salmon pens where farmed salmon are pumped full of antibiotics and riddled with sea lice and tumors

There is a high risk of contamination from farmed fish. The risk to the surrounding environment – our oceans – from uneaten fish feed, fish waste, and any antibiotics or chemicals used in fish farm operations can be disastrous to marine life.

And farmed Atlantic salmon that escape into the Pacific pose an even greater danger.

“Exceptionally high tides and currents coinciding with this week’s solar eclipse caused damage to a salmon farm that has been in operation near Cypress Island for approximately 30 years,” the company said.

So what’s the stop-gap remedy for this potential environmental disaster?

Farmed salmon vs wild salmon – a cautionary tale for consumers

Calling all anglers please!

Even though local anglers are concerned that the Atlantic salmon will eat local salmon, they’re now being called upon to go fishing for these escaped fish.

The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife is encouraging anglers to specifically get out there and catch the escaped salmon, said to be 8 to 10 pounds in weight and considered safe to eat.

Safe to eat? When they’re known to be chock full of antibiotics and carry sea lice and riddled with open sores, swollen gills, tumors and deformities? Sounds appetizing, yes?

The Guardian reported in April that the sea louse, or salmon louse, is eating into farmed Atlantic salmon supplies in Scotland, Norway, Iceland and Canada, driving salmon prices higher and creating a “chemical arms race in the seas.” Salmon companies worldwide are spending an estimated $1.25 billion a year combined to tackle such outbreaks.

So, just like the companies that are steamrolling to get natural gas pipelines laid across the country that they SWEAR won’t leak (and we know that they do and will), these companies are swearing that this is a tragic error created by an act of God.

Seriously?

Ron Warren, head of WDFW’s Fish Program, says there is no evidence farmed salmon pose a threat to native fish populations, either through disease or crossbreeding with Pacific salmon. To date, he said, there is no record of Atlantic salmon successfully reproducing with Pacific salmon in Washington’s waters.

All it takes is one and we’ve seen this happen with other scenarios already.

Isn’t it time consumers put our collective feet down and insist that these unnatural “farms” be scrapped and that conservation of wild fish be attended to? Can we really trust these companies to keep their word, when natural disasters are to be expected?

Plastic pollution – such as shown here in the Grand Canyon prior to the plastic water ban – will likely now become a common scene again.

In what is clearly bowing to pressure from both our infamous, uh, illustrious national leader and lobbying (as with beaucoup dollars thrown at them or the federal agency that oversees it) by plastic bottle manufacturers, the National Park Service has announced it’s lifting the 6-year ban on the sale of plastic water bottles within national parks.

The ban was put in place in 2011 after the tremendous litter problem in national parks from the plastic waste was recognized. At that point, approximately 30 percent of the Parks’ waste came from improperly discarded plastic bottles.

Unfortunately the ban didn’t stop the sale of bottled sweetened drinks on National Park land.

Since the ban took effect, 23 of the Service’s 417 parks have implemented it. Those include some the nation’s most popular destinations like the Grand Canyon, Zion National Park, Bryce Canyon National Park and Mount Rushmore.

Why was the ban necessary? Consider the facts:

Grand Canyon National Park – how much longer will it remain this clean:? Photo by Moyan Brenn

The parks system has done studies that show plastic bottles are among the biggest source of pollution in places like the Grand Canyon. A 2012 report showed that the trails in the Grand Canyon, for example, had largely decreased the amount of tossed plastic bottles after the ban was implemented. The study did, however, reveal that birds and other animals were still getting plastic chunks of bottle lodged in their throats from shredded or broken plastic litter.

Now the Parks Service has seen fit to disregard a policy that has obviously been working in favor of one that is destructive to both the wildlife AND to the land its chartered to protect.

“It’s a really bad message for the parks to be sending and inconsistent with their mission which is … to protect the resources, and so having plastic water bottles littering the landscape is certainly not consistent with that,” said Sandy Bahr of the Arizona chapter of the Sierra Club. “The National Parks Service should be showing leadership and setting examples and not taking steps backward.”

These handy hydrating alternatives have been available to hikers in the Grand Canyon and other national parks. They’ve helped greatly reduce plastic waste. Why not keep what works?

The rollback of the policy will become effective immediately, officials said. Parks will still promote recycling of plastic water bottles, and many have worked with partners to provide free water in bottle-filling stations, they said.

But with single serve water bottles readily available for sale, hikers and visitors have no real incentive to be mindful of the environment. Of course some will bring their own eco-friendly water bottles. But there will definitely be the mentality of “why worry about that when you can always buy something at the park,” that so many park visitors will have.

This new policy will definitely bring back a serious problem that didn’t need to happen. Hats off the Park Service for taking two steps backward.

As the prices drop for solar panels, solar has gained incredible popularity over the past few years. From home use to huge commercial arrays, solar has become a fixture in the American landscape for green energy.

Utility companies have jumped on the solar bandwagon. Solar is increasingly becoming a part of utility companies portfolio and strategic plan. Minnesota’s largest member-owned electric cooperative, Connexus Energy, has gone one further. It’s created a first-of-its-kind solar garden that not only produces energy but honey as well.

The company’s pollinator-friendly solar array encompasses wildflowers and features 15 beehives that have been managed and expanded during the summer. The flowers provide much-needed food for the pollinators who have been suffering from severe loss of habitat and pesticide use across the country.

“It’s a perfect pairing,” said Marla Spivak, a renowned bee researcher at the University of Minnesota. “You have the solar energy efficiency and then you have pollinator habitat. What could be better?”

SolarWise Honey will be harvested and marketed this Fall, thanks to Bolton Bees

Samantha Neral, a Connexus Energy spokesperson, said “following Minnesota’s adoption of a law and statewide standard for pollinator-friendly solar (the country’s first such statewide standards, passed in 2016), our array was evaluated and scored well above the level required to call it ‘exemplary pollinator habitat.’ To us, bee hives at a pollinator-friendly solar garden seem like the natural next step.”

Travis and Chiara Bolton of Bolton Bees, a first-generation business, breed Minnesota-hardy queen bees in addition to producing a line of distinct, location-specific honey that is sold to select restaurants and retailers.

“We carefully select properties throughout Minnesota for our apiaries. With its abundance of pollinator-friendly flowers, the Connexus solar garden is the perfect environment for a healthy bee location,” they said.

A Minnesota nonprofit made the initial introduction between Bolton Bees and Connexus Energy.

Fresh Energy’s Rob Davis said “Connexus Energy’s project is a shining example of what a solar site can and should be. Nationwide, many communities are interested in ensuring the productive use of farm and rural lands. Connexus Energy’s bird- and pollinator-friendly solar array shows that solar sites can be designed and managed in ways that have numerous agricultural and environmental benefits.”

Maryland recently passed standards modeled on Minnesota’s, and pollinator-friendly solar projects are now being pitched or built in states like Wisconsin, Iowa and Vermont.

This Fall the honey produced at Connexus Energy’s site will be harvested. ll. A portion of the honey will be named SolarWise Honey after Connexus Energy’s successful community solar garden program and will be given to solar garden subscribers and donated to local community fundraising events.

Bolton Bees, which is in the process of becoming a B Corp, has registered a Federal Trademark (Serial # 87406579) for Solar HoneyTM. to help establish an industry standard for honey produced on or adjacent to solar arrays, They intend for the trademark to be available to all honey producers, electric cooperatives, food companies, and solar businesses willing to agree to the production standard.

South Texas faces the prospect of 3 of these offshore LNG terminals off its pristine, environmentally sensitive coast if FERC holds true to its history

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) – is (supposedly) an independent tasked with regulating the interstate transmission of electricity, natural gas, and oil. According to its own website, it reviews proposals to build liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminals and interstate natural gas pipelines as well as licensing hydropower projects.

Among FERC’s responsibilities, it:

Ensures the safe operation and reliability of proposed and operating LNG terminals and

Oversees environmental matters related to natural gas and hydroelectricity projects and other matters

However, according to a news report, “the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has rejected only two pipelines over the last 30 years out of the hundreds proposed, according to an investigation that paints the regulatory body as particularly cozy with the industry it oversees.”

For anyone involved in managing statistics, the truth will out – numbers don’t lie.

“Between mid-2010 and 2016, large energy companies scheduled at least 93 meetings with FERC officials, compared with the 17 meetings scheduled with environmental and public-interest groups, according to emails and official calendars.”

Here in South Texas, we’re facing the possibility – more likely probability – of 3 offshore LNG terminals off the coast of Brownsville. FERC will be reviewing these applications & considering the public comments they’ve received before determining whether or not to approve these applications.

Approving them would spell disaster for pristine, environmentally sensitive ecosystems in the area and potentially put large numbers of people at risk, should there ever be a leak or explosion, which the industry is well-known for having.

But with such a dark, almost rubber stamping history to go by, it doesn’t seem like there’s much light at the end of this tunnel for the citizens of South Texas, or for the endangered species that call this area home.

Time will tell but we shouldn’t hold our breath, hoping that this self-proclaimed quasi judiciary agency will do the “right” thing. Do you suppose it would help to wish on a lucky star instead?

Last week’s news about Amazon purchasing Whole Foods has left consumers in a tizzy. On the one hand, it will make high quality food even more accessible. On the other hand, as is always the case, it presents new problems to be addressed.

One of these issues centers around the proliferation of shipping boxes. Americans love affair with online ordering has dramatically increased the amount of cardboard boxes making their way to our landfills.

And it’s not only boxes. Plastic packaging has greatly increased as well. This video from the California Product Stewardship Council was featured on a recent NBC Nightly News broadcast.It features CPSC’s Heidi Sanborn and Robert Reed of San Francisco’s Recology discussing how our growing addiction to online shopping impacts our landfills.

Consumers have always had a say in what manufacturers provide. We vote with our dollars.When we speak up, they listen. It’s up to us to tell manufacturers that we want less wasteful packaging with our online orders.

Interestingly enough, that type of packaging has been around for more than five years in a variety of forms. So why aren’t more companies using it?

It comes down to two things. It’s cheaper for them to use what they already have in hand. AND they aren’t convinced (yet) that we really want something better for the environment.

So tell your favorite online store that you want more eco-friendly packaging. Insist that they do a better, more responsible job with their packaging. After all, they know if we don’t like what they do, we’ll take our money and shop elsewhere. Money – and people – speak to their profits.

Roundup and Monsanto have been taking some pretty hard hits from environmentalists, farmers, scientists and others because of the highly toxic main ingredient glyphosate. Even though the EPA, now being strong-armed by our current administration, never finalized its findings about the chemical’s toxicity, there’s plenty of evidence around the world that this is a seriously bad thing for the environment.

But there may be a small ray of hope out there.

A news report today said that Scotts, under license with Monsanto, has come out with a new version of Roundup that’s available in garden centers in Austria, of all places.

Apparently the bottle looks the same as the one we’ve seen here. The only difference compared with the familiar Roundup is that the new one has a prominent label on the front saying it’s formulated “without glyphosate” (“ohne Glyphosat” in German). The back of the bottle lists,on the ingredients label, the “active substance” as none other than vinegar (“Essigsäure”).

“The World Health Organisations’ cancer agency IARC has stated that glyphosate was a probable human carcinogen,” said Dr Helmut Burtscher, a biochemist who works for the Vienna-based NGO GLOBAL 2000. Monsanto has admitted in court that it cannot claim that Roundup doesn’t cause cancer because the complete formulation has never been tested.

However, Burtscher cautions buyers (and gardeners) to beware.

“We do not know if the vinegar-based Roundup formulation still contains toxic adjuvants” (additives present in glyphosate herbicide formulations that are designed to increase the toxicity of glyphosate to plants).

But if Scotts can prove the safety of the adjuvants, Burtscher says it’s a win-win situation: “It’s a victory for Monsanto because now it has a product that doesn’t cause harm and a victory for people and the environment.”

Time and consumer reaction will be telling for this”new” version of an old go-t0 for farmers and gardeners. Could it be a safe bet? Or is it a marketing ploy for the chemical company to win back customers? Either way, it’s interesting that there was no major fanfare – in Europe or elsewhere – about this new Roundup.

A silent testing of the market? Could be. We’ll definitely keep an ear to the ground on this one.